The debate on whether a free market or state enterprise is
the superior form of economic governance is an old one which comes to the
surface every now and again. It is currently being rerun once more, with numerous
plebiscites across the industrialised world making it clear over the past 18
months that voters are keen to explore alternatives to a system which is
perceived to have failed following the global financial collapse of 2008. The
popularity of Bernie Sanders, particularly amongst younger voters, during the
US presidential primaries last year testifies to the fact that there is a
market for politicians prepared to speak about collective solutions to many of
society’s current economic ills.
Nowhere is this debate more pronounced than in the UK where Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called for “21st century” socialism in an echo of the slogan used by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Following on from the relative success of the Labour Party in the June election, Corbyn’s speech to his party faithful last week called for higher taxes and more government spending in a bid to differentiate Labour from the free market policies of the Conservatives. Ahead of her own party conference, Prime Minister Theresa May hit back in a speech by declaring the free market economy “the greatest agent of collective human progress ever created.” Neither is wholly right or wrong: there is some merit in both systems. But in reality, in a modern economy neither the total primacy of markets nor the heavy hand of government can hope to deliver the outcomes which their proponents believe. Mixed economies are the ideal – the hard part is to get the balance right.
Many free market idealists point to the success of the industrial revolution which was characterised by a market economy comprised of large numbers of small companies. But whilst this did deliver a significant increase in material living standards, it also had adverse side effects in the form of wealth and income disparities as some people became exceedingly rich at the expense of those who did back-breaking manual labour. Another side effect was that many small companies grew large enough to attain monopoly positions, which in the US triggered action by the government to rein in the “robber barons” via antitrust laws. There is no small irony in the fact that the US government’s action represented interference by the state in the operation of private sector companies. It pulled the same trick in the 1980s by forcing the breakup of AT&T at a time when the pro-market Ronald Reagan occupied the White House.
What this highlights is that governments do have a role to play in market economies by ensuring an institutional framework in which the interests of the consumer are best served. Ironically, the EU has been one of the great guarantors of consumer interests across Europe. Those of you who travel throughout Europe can thank the European Commission for the abolition of mobile roaming charges and for the widespread adoption of the European Health Insurance Card. The Commission also forced Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer from the Windows operating system because it “harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice.” Those who criticise the EU for its stifling bureaucracy perhaps ought to look again at its record in championing competition which promotes consumer welfare.
This is not to say that a system of central planning will necessarily work either, as the examples of the Soviet Union and pre-Deng Xiaoping China have shown. In a less extreme example, Britain in the 1970s was characterised by institutional rigidities which overrode the operation of market forces, notably in the labour market, which held back growth and resulted in high inflation. It was thus not hard to make the case at the end of the 1970s for applying a new economic broom and applying the ideas advocated by Milton Friedman and his Chicago colleagues. It was argued that the prevailing problems could be cured by allowing the market to eliminate rigidities (restrictive practices, credit rationing etc.) and that a bright new dawn of prosperity lay ahead. And for a long time it worked. Voters got used to relative stability and rising incomes, until one day Lehman’s went bust.
Arguably, this was the point at which voter tolerance for the free market snapped. The popular narrative is that bankers played in a system without any rules and in which market forces ruled. Worse still, the private sector losses were loaded onto the public balance sheet and the system was reset to continue on its way, whilst the austerity required to get public finances in order hit the poorest disproportionately hard. Whilst this is a stylised version of what happened, enough people believe it such that they want change.
What this does highlight is that all economic policies have a limited shelf life as the downsides begin to show through. Corbyn’s call for a renationalisation programme taps into this wave. Thirty years ago, it was argued that opening up former state-owned utilities to competition would boost efficiency and improve choice for the consumer. I never fully bought that argument: Selling utilities off to the private sector was never going to automatically increase real choice. We still buy many of the same products delivered via the same distribution network – it’s not like competitors entered the railway market offering us new routes. The one stand out example where the policy worked was in telecoms but that was only because the mobile revolution changed the face of the business.
As Tim Harford concludes in an FT article on privatisation, “the picture is mixed, the details matter, and you can get results if you get the execution right.” The flipside of Harford’s conclusion is that the promise by Jeremy Corbyn to renationalise a significant proportion of the utilities will not necessarily produce better results. Equally, Theresa May’s push for the free market is not guaranteed to produce better outcomes either. There is a role for both systems: It is not clear whether the two competing political versions in the UK have the balance right.
Nowhere is this debate more pronounced than in the UK where Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called for “21st century” socialism in an echo of the slogan used by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Following on from the relative success of the Labour Party in the June election, Corbyn’s speech to his party faithful last week called for higher taxes and more government spending in a bid to differentiate Labour from the free market policies of the Conservatives. Ahead of her own party conference, Prime Minister Theresa May hit back in a speech by declaring the free market economy “the greatest agent of collective human progress ever created.” Neither is wholly right or wrong: there is some merit in both systems. But in reality, in a modern economy neither the total primacy of markets nor the heavy hand of government can hope to deliver the outcomes which their proponents believe. Mixed economies are the ideal – the hard part is to get the balance right.
Many free market idealists point to the success of the industrial revolution which was characterised by a market economy comprised of large numbers of small companies. But whilst this did deliver a significant increase in material living standards, it also had adverse side effects in the form of wealth and income disparities as some people became exceedingly rich at the expense of those who did back-breaking manual labour. Another side effect was that many small companies grew large enough to attain monopoly positions, which in the US triggered action by the government to rein in the “robber barons” via antitrust laws. There is no small irony in the fact that the US government’s action represented interference by the state in the operation of private sector companies. It pulled the same trick in the 1980s by forcing the breakup of AT&T at a time when the pro-market Ronald Reagan occupied the White House.
What this highlights is that governments do have a role to play in market economies by ensuring an institutional framework in which the interests of the consumer are best served. Ironically, the EU has been one of the great guarantors of consumer interests across Europe. Those of you who travel throughout Europe can thank the European Commission for the abolition of mobile roaming charges and for the widespread adoption of the European Health Insurance Card. The Commission also forced Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer from the Windows operating system because it “harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice.” Those who criticise the EU for its stifling bureaucracy perhaps ought to look again at its record in championing competition which promotes consumer welfare.
This is not to say that a system of central planning will necessarily work either, as the examples of the Soviet Union and pre-Deng Xiaoping China have shown. In a less extreme example, Britain in the 1970s was characterised by institutional rigidities which overrode the operation of market forces, notably in the labour market, which held back growth and resulted in high inflation. It was thus not hard to make the case at the end of the 1970s for applying a new economic broom and applying the ideas advocated by Milton Friedman and his Chicago colleagues. It was argued that the prevailing problems could be cured by allowing the market to eliminate rigidities (restrictive practices, credit rationing etc.) and that a bright new dawn of prosperity lay ahead. And for a long time it worked. Voters got used to relative stability and rising incomes, until one day Lehman’s went bust.
Arguably, this was the point at which voter tolerance for the free market snapped. The popular narrative is that bankers played in a system without any rules and in which market forces ruled. Worse still, the private sector losses were loaded onto the public balance sheet and the system was reset to continue on its way, whilst the austerity required to get public finances in order hit the poorest disproportionately hard. Whilst this is a stylised version of what happened, enough people believe it such that they want change.
What this does highlight is that all economic policies have a limited shelf life as the downsides begin to show through. Corbyn’s call for a renationalisation programme taps into this wave. Thirty years ago, it was argued that opening up former state-owned utilities to competition would boost efficiency and improve choice for the consumer. I never fully bought that argument: Selling utilities off to the private sector was never going to automatically increase real choice. We still buy many of the same products delivered via the same distribution network – it’s not like competitors entered the railway market offering us new routes. The one stand out example where the policy worked was in telecoms but that was only because the mobile revolution changed the face of the business.
As Tim Harford concludes in an FT article on privatisation, “the picture is mixed, the details matter, and you can get results if you get the execution right.” The flipside of Harford’s conclusion is that the promise by Jeremy Corbyn to renationalise a significant proportion of the utilities will not necessarily produce better results. Equally, Theresa May’s push for the free market is not guaranteed to produce better outcomes either. There is a role for both systems: It is not clear whether the two competing political versions in the UK have the balance right.
No comments:
Post a Comment